Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Best of What's New From Popular Science 118

Posted by Hemos from the and-floating-cars dept.
Wrathie writes ""The top 100 technological innovations of 2003, from aviation to defibrillation, GPS to Wi-Fi, rotary to rockets. The year and the gear that was." This article from Popular Science magazine is quite extensive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Best of What's New From Popular Science More

The Best of What's New From Popular Science

Comments Filter:

  • I fear to look... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:17AM (#7433161)
    iTMS isn't in the top ten is it?

  • Note to inventors (Score:5, Funny)

    by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:20AM (#7433171) Homepage
    Don't release anything between November and December or it'll never make it to a "best of", "coolest of" or "top 5,000 things" list.

  • Buh?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by hyperherod ( 574576 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:21AM (#7433174)
    "After years of refusing to pay for digital music, consumers have made Apple's iTunes Music Store the music industry's first digital success story, purchasing a whopping 10 million songs in just over four months. This figure is even more impressive when you consider that the service is available only to Mac users"

  • bah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis&utk,edu> on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:22AM (#7433177) Homepage Journal
    Everyone knows the good issues of Popular Science are long gone. Remember projects/experiments, rather than just news? Yeah, Popular Mechanics used to have them too, ones relating to mechanics.

    Printed news is now effectively obsolete, they don't even stay curren on the happenings in Soviet Russia like slashdot does.

    • Changing tech (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @08:18AM (#7433376) Homepage
      Remember projects/experiments, rather than just news? Yeah, Popular Mechanics used to have them too, ones relating to mechanics.

      But not anymore. Technology has shot so far ahead that what already surrounds is far more impressive than anything we can quickly whip up from readily available materials. The classic science projects have fallen by the wayside.
      • > Technology has shot so far ahead that what already
        > surrounds is far more impressive than anything we
        > can quickly whip up from readily available materials.

        Then the next step in science should be to find out how to quickly whip up all the modern technology from readily available materials. Or else, what is it good for?
    • ...they don't even stay curren on the happenings in Soviet Russia like slashdot does.

      I didn't think I'd ever again see the words "current" (okay, "curren") and "Soviet Russia" in the same sentence. Is there a time warp here that I dont know about?

  • Patent Jungle? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:24AM (#7433182) Homepage
    I wonder how many of these innovations are "protected" by patents which will make sure that above all, money can be sucked out of them.

    It's not necessarily a bad thing (in all cases anyway), but I'd guess pretty much each one is.

    • The patent system works quite well wherever tangible things are concerned.

      It's only when we start trying to patent abstract things like algorithms or business practices that it starts to look like a bit of a mess.

    • Re:Patent Jungle? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bruthasj ( 175228 )
      I wonder how many innovations were made by ordinary people slaving and sweating everyday to figure out how to do something better? I wonder how many spent more money just during the "concept" phase to get things rolling than many of us could every make?

      There's a balance to the issue with Patents, as with nearly anything. Having no patents on anything is just more of the Internet generation sucking in everything for free... it's a really intense vacuum.
    • and here i was thinking the current patent system WAS one of the great innovations of our time..

  • The best is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:29AM (#7433198) Journal
    that which opens the door to future developments. I don't think a skinny TV, or even the beautiful maglev train contribute half as much as the entrants to the X-Prize. I don't think any of the others will stimulate further invention as much as a commercial space travel. Next I'd like to see the Y-Prize - first commercial hotel on Mars ;) Though that Mag-train is beautiful.

    • Re:The best is... (Score:5, Informative)

      by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:45AM (#7433251) Journal
      Though that Mag-train is beautiful.

      Funny that they claim it's the world's first. I'm not sure what the criteria for 'first' is (other than the blatantly obvious) but at Expo '86, Japan had a working maglev train which was whisper quiet. It only ran for about 100m in length, back and forth, but it was certainly viable. You'd think in 17 years there would have been an implementation of this successful technology.

      • Re:The best is... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The Shanghai Transrapid is the first in regular, scheduled, commercial travel.
        The idea is much older (the first patent was granted 1934), and the system has been in test runs since the seventies.

        More can be read here: http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html

        The manufacturers have a well-made site in English, French, and German (naturally, although the PopSci article neglects to mention that the Shanghai Transrapid was built by a German consortium).
        • That is a nice site. The best bit is where it lists a top speed of 450 km/h / 280 mph. That's London to Edinburgh in... about 40 minutes. I'm not sure I'd want to combine that sort of technology with the British train companies *ahem* track record though. You know, when they shut down a line because of leaves it isn't because the leaves interfere with the train gripping the rails, it's because when it hits the leaves the whole thing just vanishes from their monitoring systems. *Nice*
      • The transrapid people, the same who built the shanghai trains, had a working vehicle in 1971. If http://www.transrapid.de/en/information/his_txt.ht ml doesn't work for you, click on the "chronology" link.
      • actually,

        i think it was Disney that had the first efficient, operational mag train:

        "When a new PeopleMover was built at the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World, the rubber wheels were replaced by a series of pollution-free linear induction motors embedded in the track. This system creates a magnetic field that pushes the five three-car trains along

        7,200 ft of track at up to 15 miles per hour. The main advantage of the system is its lack of gear belts or other mechanical devices. The wheels and doors are
        • oops,

          sorry about the malformed address:

          http://members.aol.com/surfdancec/wdwcollegeprog ra m.htm

          There was an extra " " in there.

          jeff
        • The wheels and doors are the only moving points in the entire PeopleMover.

          Don't you thing the idea of it having wheels does matter just a bit? If that aint a mechanical device (although a pretty simple one) then what is?

          Sixflags in NL has a nice rollercoaster that is propelled by such a system too (more like a rail-gun actually, the propulsion is only at two stages in the ride. It as wheels as well though.
  • Popular Science is running a story on the most noxious jobs in science [popsci.com]. Perhaps the slashdot editors might consider running this as a frontpage story in a week or two.

  • Popular Science: The Weekly World News of Tech (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:34AM (#7433217) Homepage
    OK, maybe I'm a little too harsh. Maybe it's closer to 'PC Magazine'.

    When I was a kid, Popular Science magazine facinated me because it talked about all the interesting stuff that's 'comming real soon now'. As I understood more, I realized that most of it was just puffed up press releases, prototypes that usually were never released, and wishful thinking.

    Very little of it had to do with science. Most of it was invention and technology. While there can be overlap, technology isn't science it's one application of science and then usually only partially.

  • For me the top 2 were the Tier One (plane trying for the X-prize) and WASTE.

    Tier One for really going for it, good luck to the team.

    WASTE for being something that is actualy giving us some privacy online. Good work there.

    Whqat did other /.ers like?
    • I could not repress a smile when the very first picture displayed in the article showed the White Knight and Space Ship One in flight. I'm a big Scaled Composites fan, and I'm pretty sure they're gonna collect the X-Prize this year (watch the sky on 17th of December).

      The article says that the SS1 did not behave as expected and that it will have to be corrected, but that's because they didn't research their facts. The elevators stalled at the end of one landing, (so, yes, this was not expected) but it is co

  • Invisible WMDs (Score:4, Funny)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @07:50AM (#7433258) Homepage

    Surely this is the most impressive innovation of the year ? In January there were lots of them and now it turns out they are all invisible and that is the reason we can't find them. I mean the alternative is that they were not there in the first place, which we know they were because we are told they were therefore the obvious conclusion is that if they are there and we can't see them then they must be invisible.

    No its invisible WMDs that are the most impressive technical achievement of 2003.

    This was a paid for posting on behalf of Donald Rumsfeld
    • "We had a good discussion, the foreign minister and I and the president and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against
    • The secret is out!

      Saddam, the WMDs, Elvis, and possibly even a pink unicorn are all being concealed by the real top innovation of 2003- invisibility! [time.com]

  • ...Viagra-flavored HGH that refinances your home in a Nigerian pop-up!

    Still, can't wait to get me one of them home defibrillators! Hoo-ee! Fun times tonight!

  • Where's the traffic light remote? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2003 @08:06AM (#7433321)
    You have to agree that's pretty cool

  • Creation - Innovative. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm surprised creation didn't make the list, at least that's not evolutionary.

  • Popular science and their lack of geeks... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @08:44AM (#7433509)
    Apple delivers the first 64-bit computer.

    Amazing.

    • It will be even more amazing when MS delivers the first 64 bit OS in a few years.
    • Almost as amazing as the hybrid 4 stroke engine using crankcase blowby for valve lubrication. This has existed for 20+ years already, with probably a million of these engines are in existance. (model RC 4 stroke engines ALL use this technology) Yet they claim it is one of the best inventions of 2003???

      The best part... This technology isn't very useful for large engines (chainsaw size and up) It tends to destroy them quite quickly compared to a regular 4 stroke or 2 stroke.

      • How about the RX-8?

        In 1998 the RX-7 RC2 had an output of 280hp and got around 20 miles to the gallon. Yes it was a turbo, but there's not really much negative to say about them when they are built properly (especially on a rotary).

        Now it's 2003 and they are trying to pass off a 263hp rotary without a turbo as being some earth-shaking technological achievement and all the media outlets and car mags are eating it up. What was that about the fuel economy? Still gets ~ 20mpg? Yup.

        I'll get excited when they r
        • It's the same engine core, without a turbo, delivering nearly the same amount of horsepower. Hell yeah that's innovative. They won the International Engine of the Year for 2003 because it's an engineering masterpiece.

          The best and easiest way to get more power out of a rotary engine core has always been to increase the size of the intake and exhaust ports. They moved some of the ports to the side of the housing. Rotary racers have used bridge and j-ports similarly but they were totally undrivable excep

          • I guess you are right. That is quite a horsepower gain in a mere 4 years of evolution. I had assumed they designed a new engine core and ditched the old one.

            That's what I get for not being much of a rice enthusiast.

            Is there any word on the seals being more durable this time around? I remember the old days when half the RX-7's you'd see would have a big con trail of smoke behind it. Even one of my friends, who drove his like a little old lady, had bad seals after only 60k miles. :(
        • I thought the big deal of the renisis (isn't that what they call it?) engine was not it's economy or it's power. It was the fact it made the same power, had the same fuel economy, and passed emmission standards which is something the old rx-7 couldn't do.
        • I prefer the Porsche... 605 horsepower from a 5.7 liter engine, naturally aspirated. That's an incredible amount of power for its size. The only car I know of that makes that more power per liter without using forced induction is the Honda S2000.

        • "Now it's 2003 and they are trying to pass off a 263hp rotary without a turbo as being some earth-shaking technological achievement and all the media outlets and car mags are eating it up. "

          I'd say the fact that they solved the little "engine-blowing-up-problem" with the rotary is quite an accomplishment. Its the one reason why I'm waiting for the remade RX7 to come out and not getting an old 3rd gen one.

  • Itunes technology? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clickety6 ( 141178 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @08:53AM (#7433552)

    So what exactly is the technological innovation of itunes? I mean, it's a nice service and works fairly well - but I don't see it as much of a leap ahead of what we had before.

  • There, Inc???? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @09:11AM (#7433658)
    There

    There.com
    Vote for
    There
    as your pick for 2003's Best of What's New.

    For years, science fiction writers have tempted us with tales of lands that exist only in cyberspace, where you can create a spanking new virtual version of yourself and pursue an alternate existence. After five years of development, There Inc. has opened the virtual doors to such a world, and it makes online chat rooms seem as old as Grandma's Victrola. Denizens of There can meticulously tailor the look of their online avatars and engage in whatever activities suit their fancy, from hoverboard races and paintball fights to shopping, clothing design and home construction.

    Holy crap, I am having trouble believing anyone with half a brain could enjoy There. I am not sure how many readers have actually played this game, but here's some details about my beta test experience:

    I get a set of CD's in the mail and a letter thanking me for participating in the 'free' beta test program. I install it, expecting another Everquest or graphical MUD with 3d graphics.

    Boy was I wrong. It's like Efnet with a 3d card. There's no killing. No real adventure.

    The money system is a rip-off. For instance, I could pay credits to change my hair color, get new pants, or buy a car. To get credits, you have pay them like $20. This isn't the slightest bit cool. I did find that I could sell all my clothes and run about in my under-wear. This got me about 40,000 credits (~$20 real money?) so I bought a car.

    Having a car was great, I spent a few hours running people over repeatedly. You hit them hard enough and they fly for like a mile. There's no death, so they are stuck walking a while to get back. The moderators don't take to kindly to this. Instead of changing the game to lower the distance someone can get knocked, they basically follow you around whining about the rules and making things from your inventory disappear as punishment.

    To top everything off, I was threatened to have my account suspended for running around with no clothes on. I'm sorry, but if you are going to allow me to make a giant, overweight, black male character, then allow me a huge profit by selling my clothes, I'll run around in my white boxers all I want. Why can I strip down to boxers and run around in them if it's not allowed? Seems a bit retarded.

    It was quite obvious that more than half the people in the beta were there to cause disruption. A game with "no rules" (ya right) and no real goals results in a lot of bored people.

    I did run into a few people that really liked the game. But as I said earlier, It's really just a graphical chatroom where people can play silly games together and do physical emotes while sitting on benches. A number of people I ran into during the beta had spent upwards of $60 getting their avatars decked out. If that's your thing, then you'll enjoy it. Otherwise, don't even think twice about getting this! Not even for your wife or kids.
    • I see a lot of parallels between this and (don't laugh) the anime series "dot hack" - it had precisely the same problem, in that it centered on a fantasy world with no rules. Naturally, disputes began to erupt among the players over what, exactly, was permissible in such a world - for example, should "concerned citizens" sorts be allowed to act as vigilantes when the moderators refused to get involved?
    • Sounds a bit like Habitat (made by Lucasarts, I think). I never played it, but one of the designers wrote an exceptionally insightful article on what lessons were learned (reprinted in True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier, as well as linked off of Slashdot at some point). You are absolutely correct, it is stupid to give you the ability to sell your clothes, even give you an incentive to do so, and then forbid you to do it. Habitat tried to solve the boredom issue by creating interesting
      • Ha, the item inventory list contains a nice age old joke:

        Compass: points directly to West Pole.

        I think the user interface would be a bit outdated for now. Much more interesting communities could evolve with the current state of things.

        Now for the theoretical problems.
    • The fitness test for who would enjoy There is not whether or not they have "half a brain." It's whether or not they enjoy creating things.

      If you innately enjoy building, creating, and making new things, then you will enjoy There. If you like blowing things up, running over people with your car, or in general being an obstinate bastard, then There will leave you feeling empty.

      You can recommend this for your wife or children if they are the creative sort, irregardless of how much brain they have.
      • It's all fun and games until the wife goes and spends $100 of real cash for enough credits to throw a tiki party, buy a new dress, shoes, hat, hair-style and jet board! ;-)

        I was being a little rude about the 'half a brain' remark. It is true, the game is a clean slate for building social realms. There's just none of the elements a classic twitch or role gamer would find appealing. Except for finding another butthole with a buggy to play pedestrian pong with.

  • Why is the RX8 on this list? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MWales ( 686969 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @09:26AM (#7433729)
    The renesis design might be slightly improved over the older rotaries, but this car's performance is terrible. It doesn't make 238 HP, Mazda even says so and has derated it, and based on what people who dyno test it, it's even lower than Mazda's new figures. And it has less than 160 lb-ft of torque! Yeah, the NA rotary might have improved a little bit since it's last generation, but look around at everything else, they have improved MUCH more. From 4 cylinders like the Subaru and Honda on up to 8 cyclinders like LS1/LS6 V8s in Corvette/Camaro/Firebirds/GTOs, everything else has improved much more and left the rotary in the dust. Take that thing off the list, it doesn't belong.
    • It doesn't make 238 HP, Mazda even says so

      Really? Because, like, their website [mazdausa.com] still says it has 238hp.

      And you're 'less than 160 lb-ft of torque' quote is like saying $9.99 is less than $10. While true, there isn't a noticable difference. The RX-8 has 159 lb-ft of torque.

      But anyone who's ever driven, or even done research on, a rotary motor already knows that torque isn't where this engine shines. Rev it up to 9000RPM and let the horsepower take you down the front straight.

    • Re:Why is the RX8 on this list? (Score:5, Informative)

      by confu2000 ( 245635 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @11:53AM (#7434746)
      You should get your facts right.

      1) The new rating is 238. The old rating was 247. While various people have dyno'd and believe the true rating is below 238, there's some question as to if this is due to the car being too smart for single axel dynos and limiting performance if it doesn't detect the front wheels moving (plenty of BMWs do this too).

      At any rate, the car's perfectly capable of pulling a "less than 6.0" 0-60. 5.9 secs if you want to be precise.

      2) Yes, 159 lb-ft of torque is less than 160... It also redlines at 9000 rpms. It's a sports car so you rev it high and leave it there (and eat your gas bill). This isn't particularly different from the WRX (which admittedly isn't as bad) or S2000 both of which also lack low end torque (the WRX needs to get its turbos going before the fun really starts).

    • Yeah, sorry, I mixed up my numbers. It's hard to keep track when the HP figure is constantly dropping (250 -> 247 -> 238) Link [rx8club.com] And it doesn't even really make that much power, just excuses.

      And I said it was less than 160 because I didn't recall the exact figure. 160 isn't very flattering for something that wants to consider itself a sportscar.

      And that fact still is that the car is slow (relative to other sports cars), and everybody knows it. I still ask, why is that car on that list?

  • Speaking of top ideas, check out SlipHead.com [sliphead.com]. Its an open forum for the free exhange of ideas - similar to the way the open software movement works. Get recognized for having the best ideas, and who knows, maybe you'll even catch the eye of an investor!
  • The writer(s) of that article didn't do much to check their sources. The G5 as the FIRST 64-bit computer? Jeez....

  • 2004 Prius (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr_Huber ( 160160 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @02:51PM (#7436320) Homepage
    I'm glad to see the new Prius made the list. I took delivery of mine last month (first in Tucson!) and am still amazed by the car. I'm averaging 48.5 MPG right now, due to engine break-in and having to run the air conditioner for most of that time due to a recent warm spell.

    What's so amazing is that, after the car has started, it's just like any other well-built japanese car. It accelerates smartly, stops easily, and handles well. All that technology and the user interface is more or less that of a standard car (UI designers take note!).

    The only down side I've seen is backing up. Since the internal combustion engine does not start in reverse, the car is dead quiet. I've had to honk to get people out of the way of the car. They're so used to hearing a car before seeing it move they don't realize the car is rolling.

    Oh, as for speed, it's no BMW, but I did catch a Z28 Camaro with its pants down a couple weeks back. Every time the poor guy shifted, the Prius would pull a few more feet ahead.

    And, unlike some of the other technology mentioned, this one is avalilable (more or less) right now.
  • ...has to be the best of whats new.

    It doesn't come with Raquel Welch, but researchers at the University of London have brought the dream of Fantastic Voyage one step closer. The first video-equipped ingestible capsule capable of being piloted is about half the size of a grape and has electrodes on its outer surface that deliver a series of 5-milliamp jolts whenever physicians press a remote control. The charge triggers a small muscle spasm in the intestine, which nudges the capsule forward or backward.
  • From the article:
    There's nothing like a crackling fire made from good old-fashioned firewood.
    But real logs produce lots of soot and carbon dioxide, and real trees often have to be felled to make them.
    Investigative journalism at it's finest.
  • "The spacecraft's novel hybrid rocket--burning rubber-based fuel and nitrous oxide--launches it to a height of more than 60 miles, not into orbit but far above the atmosphere and into the realm of zero gravity."


    They can't even get basic high school physics right.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close